D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Argyle King]

THAT is actually, in my opinion, the greater problem presented by the 2024 rules. Hidden actually makes more sense than the spell does. I would home rule that the Invisibility granted by the spell is your typical fantasy invisibility, aka translucent. I would add text to the spell that says, "a creature using normal vision cannot perceive you," or something like that.

I think that could work.

Alternatively, you could write a lot less by having a "hidden" condition, instead of trying to use "invisible" to mean multiple things.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

I think that could work.

Alternatively, you could write a lot less by having a "hidden" condition, instead of trying to use "invisible" to mean multiple things.

On that, we agree!

 

[Argyle King]

On that, we agree!

Throughout the thread, I have agreed that the absurd results shouldn't be how it works.

There are multiple easy ways to fix it.

Though, to my knowledge, none of those ways are part of how the rules are written.

It could be that the full PHB contains information that I do not yet have. It might also be the case that the DMG will contain additional rules. Based on what is available to me right now, the how hiding is written in the PHB creates weird issues.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

Throughout the thread, I have agreed that the absurd results shouldn't be how it works.

There are multiple easy ways to fix it.

Though, to my knowledge, none of those ways are part of how the rules are written.

It could be that the full PHB contains information that I do not yet have. It might also be the case that the DMG will contain additional rules. Based on what is available to me right now, the how hiding is written in the PHB creates weird issues.

I totally agree. The rules are a mess, and hidden and invisible should have been broken out into two things. Regarding the PHB, I was one of the lucky jerks who got one at GenCon, and I have read it cover to cover. I didn't find anything to fix our collective quandary. Either Hide is messed up, or the Invisibility spell is. Maybe the DMG will help...

 

[Xetheral]

In fact, the text of the Invisible condition specify that "You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you." Also, "Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit against that creature."

Weirdly enough, then, the Invisible condition is phrased in a way where you can lose most of the benefits of the condition (by being seen), without losing the condition itself!

It's poor design, but does not require absurd results.

There's nothing in the text of the Invisibility condition that says you cannot be seen.

So what benefit do you think taking the Hide action provides? It doesn't make you unseen by enemies (you are already unseen by enemies to be able to take the Hide action), under your reading the Invisible condition doesn't help you remain unseen, and the Hide action does nothing about being unheard. So why would someone take the Hide action? Just to get advantage on Initiative checks?

I personally classify an almost-useless Hide action as an absurd result. Do you disagree?

 

[DavyGreenwind]

So what benefit do you think taking the Hide action provides? It doesn't make you unseen by enemies (you are already unseen by enemies to be able to take the Hide action), under your reading the Invisible condition doesn't help you remain unseen, and the Hide action does nothing about being unheard. So why would someone take the Hide action? Just to get advantage on Initiative checks?

I personally classify an almost-useless Hide action as an absurd result. Do you disagree?

As long as you remain unseen, you get the advantages specified in the Invisibility condition. I.e., you stay behind the cover or in the darkness, or you move out in a way so you are not in the enemy's line of sight. Then you get all the goodies. What takes away the benefits of the condition is walking right out into an enemy's line of sight.

 

[Xetheral]

As long as you remain unseen, you get the advantages specified in the Invisibility condition. I.e., you stay behind the cover or in the darkness, or you move out in a way so you are not in the enemy's line of sight. Then you get all the goodies. What takes away the benefits of the condition is walking right out into an enemy's line of sight.

But if you're already unseen by virtue of being behind cover or darkness, then aren't the Concealed and Attacks Affected features of the Invisible condition entirely redundant? Or are the 2014 Unseen Attacker rules no longer in the book?

And even if the Unseen Attacker rules were removed from the book, are there any non-combat advantages of taking the Hide action? If not, that still seems like an absurd result to me.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

But if you're already unseen by virtue of being behind cover or darkness, then aren't the Concealed and Attacks Affected features of the Invisible condition entirely redundant? Or are the 2014 Unseen Attacker rules no longer in the book?

And even if the Unseen Attacker rules were removed from the book, are there any non-combat advantages of taking the Hide action? If not, that still seems like an absurd result to me.

The unseen attacker rules are gone. And I believe, given the text and context of Hide, it is primarily geared towards combat, or placing an ambush. Noncombat hiding would just be a regular stealth check. I agree though, that unintentional absurdity results one way or another RAW.

 

[Kinematics]

I find the Hide rules and the Invisible condition completely self-consistent and very useful. The only issue is with the visibility of a creature that has the Invisible condition due to casting the Invisibility spell. So I agree with what several people have said above, that that needs to be fixed.

Overall, though, I do not think the rules are terrible. They are apparently lacking a single note on two spells (Invisibility and Greater Invisibility) that are part of the built-in assumption of those spells, where that assumption didn't get made explicit when they integrated the Hiding rules into the Invisible condition. It is a small error that is trivially accounted for. I would expect it to be errata'd for the next printing.

 

[Iosue]

I actually agree--I think the Invisibility spell is the greater problem RAW than the Hide rules

Yes, this is where I stand. Inasmuch as we go by RAW, the spell is problematic, but the Hide action works fine.

That said, here’s how I see it. The Invisible condition is a metagame mechanic that does not reflect the “game world” reality. The Invisibility spell and Hide action both provide the same mechanical effects, but the game world nature of these effects are distinct. The Invisibility spell is a magical occulting of the target’s appearance, while the Hide action is…regular hiding.

The Invisibility spell does not specifically say the target cannot be seen by normal vision. Undoubtedly, it would be cleaner if it did. But, the spell is called “Invisibility.” I don’t think it’s such a stretch to take that at face value: the default state of being under that spell is that you cannot be seen by normal vision.

As DM I know what it means to physically hide behind cover or concealment. I know what it means to be magically invisible. What I want the game to tell me is what the mechanical effects of those are.